Reilly received no written notification requiring her to join a scheme, but was simply told by a Jobcentre adviser that training and Poundland was mandatory.

In a joined case, Mr Wilson was given written notice requiring his participation in a scheme for the long-term employed and that his income "may be stopped for up to 26 weeks" if he did not take part.

Reilly and Wilson claimed the Regulations should be quashed because (1) they were ultra vires JSA 1995 s. 17A because they failed to prescribe a description of the scheme; (2) there was a failure to comply with the notice provisions in reg.

Reilly added that (4) needing to take unpaid work was forced labour contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights article 4.

On 6 August 2012, the High Court ruled (contrary to the arguments of Reilly and Wilson) that the scheme could not be considered slavery, and was not therefore a breach of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Kenneth Veitch has argued the rulings in Reilly v Secretary of State imply that Want is now used as a threat to ensure that welfare claimants habituate themselves to the demands of the contemporary workplace.